ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express our sincere appreciation and gratitude to this project’s Technical
Advisory Group for their relentless support, critical review, and expert insight. In
alphabetical order:

The authors thank Irene Kwan, Joe Schultz, Fanta Kamakaté, and Drew Kodjak for
their critical review and general support for the project. We also thank Darren Elliott,
Rey Carpio, and the rest of the Tecolote Research, Inc., team for developing the cost
estimation methodology applied in this analysis. This work was completed with the
generous support of the ClimateWorks Foundation and the Oak Foundation.

A performance comparison
between the cost-effective fuel-efficiency technologies identified in this study and
of aircraft currently under development is also presented.
This study finds that the fuel consumption of new aircraft designs can be reduced by
approximately 25% in 2024 and 40% in 2034 compared with today’s aircraft by deploying
emerging cost-effective technologies providing net savings to operators over a seven-year
time frame. As the
figure indicates.
Figure ES-1 depicts the fuel-efficient technologies—advanced engines.
Figure ES-2 compares the cost-effective improvements identified in this study for three
aircraft types to long-term trends in new design fuel efficiency on a fuel per revenue
passenger kilometer (RPK) basis. and lightweight materials—studied in this report and their general
placement on the aircraft. and the potential impacts on ticket prices
assuming that fuel savings are passed along to consumers. which are projected to burn between 9% and 13% less
fuel than today’s aircraft with similar seating configurations. Nonetheless. Each package is modeled into the baseline aircraft and “flown” to
assess its improved performance. from an average of slightly less than 1% per year from 1980 to 2016 up to
2. with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from international aviation
projected to triple by 2050 compared with today’s levels. fully deploying the cost effective technologies identified in this study on
new aircraft designs would more than double the rate of expected fuel burn reductions
through 2034. normalized to the fuel burn of the reference single
aisle (SA). The technologies shown in the figure were grouped into
technology packages. along with a discussion
regarding policy options to bridge the gap between what is possible and current market
demand for fuel efficiency in new aircraft.ICCT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aviation sector is one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions globally. ensuring that mutually exclusive technologies were not deployed
on the same aircraft. the fleet-wide benefits of
fully adopting cost-effective technologies.2% per year in the coming decades. The fuel savings of the 2024 cost-effective improvements are roughly double
those seen for new aircraft designs being brought to market by manufacturers today in
response to market forces alone.
This report provides a comprehensive cost assessment of near-term (2024) and
mid-term (2034) fuel-efficiency technologies for commercial aircraft in the United
States. small twin aisle (STA). It considers the upfront costs and operating savings. This gap between market-driven fuel-efficiency
improvements and what is estimated to be cost effective given current fuel price
projections represents an opportunity for additional CO2 emission reductions at net
savings for airlines and consumers.
iv
. the aviation
industry is lagging fuel-efficiency goals set by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) for new aircraft types in the 2020 and 2030 time frames by more
than a decade. improved
aerodynamics. and regional jet (RJ) aircraft (reference = 100).

airlines could be reduced by 6% in 2030 and 30% in 2050 compared with the base case. benefits
outweighed costs by a factor of three to one. or 19%. these savings could lower ticket prices by up to $20 for short-haul
flights and $105 for long-haul international flights. U. 1980 to 2040
Accelerating the adoption of these technologies would provide significant benefits to
airlines. consumers.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) reference fuel price projections. compared with
the baseline case through the adoption of cost-effective technologies. Collectively. and the environment. ICCT REPORT
140
Reference RJ In service RJ Project RJ
Reference SA In service SA Project SA
Reference STA In service STA Project STA
Cost Effective
120
Fuel burn (g/RPK reference = 100)
Current state
of the art
100
BAU trendline
80
Cost effective
60
trendline
40
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Figure ES-2 Trends in new aircraft fuel burn by entry into service year.S. airlines could reduce their fleet-wide fuel spending over the 2025 to 2050 time
frame by more than 200 megatonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe). assuming U. as shown in Figure ES-
3. meaning that for each dollar spent to
purchase a more advanced aircraft.
vi
. roughly $3 would be saved in operational costs (fuel
plus maintenance) over a 17-year first-owner lifetime. For all advanced aircraft modeled.S. Fleet-wide CO2 emissions from U. If passed along
to the consumer.

S.
economic incentives to provide market pull for new technologies by promoting fleet
turnover.S.
vii
.
The substantial gap between the improvements identified in this study and the products
being brought to market for delivery highlights the need for public policies to promote
aircraft fuel efficiency. using 2005 emissions as a baseline. fleet-wide fuel consumption and savings. Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan submitted to ICAO in 2015
details strategies to achieve the aspirational goal of carbon-neutral growth for U.S.
The U. goals
can be accomplished in a cost-effective manner. and research support to defray the costs of maturing new technologies. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
70 250
Base Cost Effective Technology Improvement
60
200
Cumulative fuel savings (Mtoe)
50
Fuel consumption (Mtoe)
150
40
30
100
20
50
10
0 0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Figure ES-3 Estimated U. aviation on the global climate. This study suggests
that the aircraft and engine technology improvements needed to achieve the U.S. 2000 to 2050
These results align with plans to reduce the impact of U.S. including robust performance standards for new aircraft.
commercial aviation by 2020.

including
military and general aviation. 2010. ICAO 2010)
CO2 emissions are directly correlated with fuel consumption. and quickly growing. airline demand for more fuel-efficient aircraft
should provide sufficient market pull for the development and deployment of all
achievable fuel-efficient technologies. The International Civil Aviation Organization1 (ICAO) projects that
CO2 emissions from international aviation will triple in 2050 compared with today’s
levels given current trends (ICAO. extrapolated to 2050.
1
. ICCT REPORT
1. contributors to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
from the transportation sector. INTRODUCTION
1. 1981 to 2050 (EIA 2012. In theory.000 in 2050.
2 Based on ICAO projections (ICAO. Figure 1 summarizes historical (1981
to 2012) and projected (through 2050) trends in global aviation CO2 emissions.
the aviation sector is one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions globally. the global fleet is expected to grow from
19. For example. In addition. it is
projected that the aviation industry will miss ICAO’s 2020 and 2030 fuel-efficiency goals
for new aircraft by more than a decade (Kharina & Rutherford. 2015). and
10% of total CO2 emissions from the transportation sector (EIA. The most likely
1 ICAO is the specialized United Nations agency that sets recommended standards and practices for civil
aviation worldwide. 2013). although
information on the relative costs of further improvements is scarce. ICAO. 2015). AVIATION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN PERSPECTIVE
Aircraft are large.1.2
2500
Historical (EIA) Forecast (ICAO)
2000
CO2 (million metric tons)
1500
1000
500
0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
Figure 1 Global CO2 emissions from aviation. traditionally the largest
operating expense for airlines. Evidence suggests that new aircraft and engines
developed by manufacturers are less efficient than is technologically possible.700 commercial passenger aircraft in 2010 to 68. with specific responsibility to control international greenhouse gas emissions. During this time. 2013). Aircraft emit about 3% of global CO2 emissions.

airlines have established a goal to reduce sector-wide net emissions of 50% below 2005
levels by 2050 (International Air Transport Association [IATA]. and India. 2015) are in particular
broadly available. relatedly. The standard was completed in
February 2016. rather than clean sheet
designs. which included targets and timetables for reducing GHG
emissions to specific levels for countries. the EU ETS requirements were suspended for flights to and from non-EU
countries between 2013 and 2016 to allow time for negotiation on a global market-based
measure applied to aviation within ICAO.g. 2009.2.al..2.2. in 2009. standard for new aircraft.
Cost-effectiveness analyses. This triggered negative
reactions from the airline industry and non-EU countries. and ICAO contracting states are expected to implement it under national
legislation starting in 2020.
2
. Separately. This report aims to address this gap.S.S.1.
As part of efforts to reduce emissions. that fail to deploy new aerodynamic and material technologies and.S. Section 231 of the CAA directs that “The
Administrator shall. and to achieve carbon neutral growth from 2020 (ICAO. 2013) and heavy-duty vehicles (e. aviation sector and the
expectation that new policies to promote aircraft fuel efficiency. 2010b). U. Twelve years later. With this lack of agreement on international
aviation. notably the United States. For example. ICAO started work to establish the world’s
first CO2.
1. it was agreed that GHG emissions from
international aviation should be “limited” or “reduced” by developed countries working
through ICAO. While the findings of this study are
generalizable worldwide. federal actions
Since the 1970s. which diverts
some technology gains away from fuel efficiency (ICCT. air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. Analyses of light-duty (e. POLITICAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT
1.S. which are typically used to set performance standards
for new vehicles. 2013b). Mezler et. However.S. Secretary of Transport to prohibit U. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
driver of this shortfall is the trend toward re-engined aircraft.
China. International: CO2 standard and global market-based measure
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol.S. notably a CO2 emission
standard for new aircraft.
EPA. from time to time. In contrast.
1. assessing the costs and benefits of fuel-saving technologies are
abundantly available for other modes of transportation. The CO2 standard is part of ICAO’s basket of measures to
achieve two main goals for aviation: an annual 2% average fleet-wide fuel efficiency
improvement until 2020 and an aspirational 2% improvement per annum from 2021
to 2050. will be adopted first there. reflecting both the importance of the U. or efficiency. or contributes to.” (CAA). did not establish binding targets for
international aviation and shipping..2.
the continued expansion of capability (payload and especially range).g. airlines
and consumers. in the United States the European Union Emissions Trading
Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011 allowed the U.
carriers from participating in the EU ETS. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated aviation
emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). the U. this report focuses on the costs and benefits for U. the European Union (EU) adopted the European
Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) in 2005 as a major part of the European
transport policy. with inclusion of aviation starting in 2012. issue proposed emission standards applicable to
the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of aircraft engines which in his
judgment causes. 2016). economic assessments of fuel efficiency for commercial
aircraft are rare. EPA.

1997). A prominent example of increased technology
deployment in this case is an energy-saving transmission system with six or more gears.
EPA contributed heavily to ICAO’s recommended CO2 standard alongside the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and has stated that it will adopt domestic standards “at
least as stringent as” those recommended by ICAO (EPA. CO2. the first step in a process
to regulate those emissions from aircraft (EPA. the EPA proposed
that GHG emissions are a danger to public health and welfare. before the EU-wide
mandatory CO2 regulation was established in 2008. the FAA submitted a U. the EPA finalized
the endangerment finding. In 2015. in June 2015. 2015). In 1997. In Europe. By 2013. only 30% of new cars in Europe were equipped with the technology. almost
70% of new cars in the EU incorporated this technology (Mock. Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction Plan to ICAO (FAA. In contrast to existing fuel-efficiency standards
for other modes. however. the carbon intensity of new passenger
vehicles fell by about 1% per year. 2014).S. which typically apply top-down methodologies. making its obligation to set an emission standard mandatory. RESEARCH BASIS
Mandatory efficiency. 2015a). Examples
include the FAA’s CLEEN (Continuous Lower Energy. a federal court ruled that the EPA
must consider whether GHGs from aircraft should be regulated under the CAA by
conducting an endangerment finding for aviation emissions. In 2011. or GHG standards for transportation/mobile sources have been
shown to improve vehicle efficiency by accelerating the deployment of new technologies
without impacting vehicle manufacturers adversely. fuel
venting. After the industry’s voluntary target was replaced by the
mandatory regulation. ICAO’s recommended standard is not expected to reduce
emissions from aircraft beyond that already expected due to planned investments in fuel
efficiency by manufacturers (ICCT. and Noise) program
targets to demonstrate technology that delivers 33% fuel burn reduction in 2015
compared with “current technology. and nitrogen oxides
(NOx) (EPA.S.
A few publicly available studies have analyzed the costs of reducing CO2 emissions
from aircraft. 2016).3. the EPA amended the regulation to adopt ICAO’s emission
standards and test procedures (EPA.
1. have
3
. In August 2016.ICCT REPORT
The EPA issued its first aviation emission standard in 1973. the CO2 reduction rate increased significantly—up to 4% per year
(Tietge & Mock. Those studies. The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Environmentally Responsible Aviation
(ERA) program targeted a 50% reduction in fuel burn for new subsonic passenger and
cargo transport aircraft in 2020. In
2007.
In February 2016. ICAO member states are
expected to implement the ICAO CO2 standard starting in 2020 for new designs and in
2023 for types already in production. The document presents U. while the NASA Advanced Air Transport Technology
(AATT) program aimed for 70% fuel burn reduction for emerging aircraft with entry into
service (EIS) dates after 2030. Emissions. 2016). carbon monoxide.” The CLEEN II program aims for a modestly higher
target: 40% reductions in fuel burn compared to year 2000 best-in-class in-service
aircraft to be matured and entered into product development by 2020. and specified pollutants: hydrocarbon. 2014)—from 2008 to 2013. 1973). regulating smoke.
Last year. goals and specific
efforts and programs to reduce fuel burn and GHG emissions from aircraft. the last major
transportation mode to be regulated under such standard. ICAO’s Committee for Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP) agreed to the first CO2 (fuel efficiency) standard for aircraft.

COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
reached different conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of reducing CO2 emissions
from aircraft via technological means. operational practices. and CO2 saved) of integrating
cost-effective technologies into U. is the least cost-effective means of controlling emissions while
operational improvements are the most cost-effective (Holland.al.S. To estimate fleet-wide benefits (dollars. What level of technology implementation
on future aircraft designs would be cost effective for operators and manufacturers. not surprisingly. Further
detail on the technology modeling approaches and results can be found in Appendices
A and B and the accompanying consultant report (Tecolote. and.
support and/or mandates for biofuel use. including promoting new aircraft fuel efficiency..5. behavioral change.
3. 2011). and efficiencies
associated with improved air traffic control are beyond the scope of this work. either through a CO2 standard
forcing older aircraft types out of production or policies to support the development
of new technologies. Another study. aviation
industry. Department for Transport.
This study was inspired by ICAO’s Report of the Independent Experts on the Medium
and Long Term Goals for Aviation Fuel Burn Reduction from Technology (ICAO 2010a). was beyond the scope of that study.(2024) and mid.K. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
This report is organized as follows: Section 2 outlines the methodology used in this
study. tons of oil. estimated that the fuel
consumption of new aircraft designs could be reduced by up to 48% (equivalent to 92%
higher fuel efficiency) in 2030 relative to the 2000 baseline if emerging technologies are
deployed to conventional airframe designs. One study concludes that CO2 emissions from
narrow-body aircraft can be reduced by 2% annually via technology improvement and
operational optimization (not taking into account alternative fuels) in a cost-effective
manner assuming oil prices remain between $50 and $100 per barrel (Schafer et.. This study aims to address this gap by estimating the costs and benefits of new
fuel-efficiency technologies in the United States. To compare the cost-effective technologies identified in this study to new
aircraft types under development by manufacturers.(2034) term. That
study suggests that promoting aircraft fuel efficiency. little
publicly available data regarding the actual cost of developing and manufacturing aircraft
equipped with new technologies since the information is considered proprietary by
industry. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Based on the discussion above. There is. fleets. in terms of ticket prices.
1.
2.S. To estimate the incremental costs and benefits to operators of purchasing new.
assuming that the cost savings of advanced aircraft are passed along. conducted by aviation industry experts and leaders. Section 4 concludes the report with a discussion of policy implications. and
under what conditions.4. consumers. To estimate potential benefits to U.
2015). Section 3 presents key findings as well as the driving factors and sensitivity
analyses. et.K. this study has the following goals:
1. and to discuss policies to
bridge any gap.
4. funded by the U. in some cases.al. Non-aircraft technologies such as biofuels.
4
. an important and representative aviation
market.
more fuel-efficient aircraft in the near. 2015). assessed the cost-
effectiveness of different policy levers to reduce CO2 emissions from the U.
The study. operational improvements.
1.

1.
Richard Golaszewski Economics
Incorporated
Formerly United Airlines. and propulsion. aerodynamics. aerodynamics.
an expert technical advisory group (TAG). with experience providing cost estimation support
to U.ICCT REPORT
2. Stanford University model development
Director. the FAA. MRO
William Norman Aircraft maintenance
Strategy
Dr. Table 1 lists the membership of the TAG along with their affiliation
and chief expertise. Aerospace and Aviation
Collaboration Programs and
Professor Meyer J. GRA. ERA Project. OVERVIEW
2. and the International Council on Clean
Transportation (ICCT).S. Ohio
State University
Project Manager. For this project. among others. Fayette Collier National Aeronautics and Space maturation and
Administration (NASA) assessment
Professor Emeritus. Inc. Contributors
This project was a collaborative effort among three groups: Tecolote Research. Aircraft technology
Dr. as well as aircraft maintenance and
economic assessment.S.1. The Automated Cost Estimating Integrated
Tools (ACEIT) and Joint Analysis Cost/Schedule (JACS) tools developed by Tecolote
are used by the full range of Department of Defense agencies and organizations. as well
as other U.
Table 1 Technical Advisory Group members
Member Affiliation Chief Expertise
Department of Aeronautics & Aerodynamics and
Professor Juan Alonso*
Astronautics. and structures. government agencies such as NASA. Imperial College
Professor Nicholas Cumpsty* Engines
London
Executive Vice President. and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Boeing retired Structures
*Co-authors of ICAO Fuel Burn technology review (ICAO 2010a)
5
.. Inc. Dianne Wiley Aerospace Consultant. METHODOLOGY
2.1. is a private firm specializing in cost estimations for high-
technology acquisition programs. Tecolote was
supported by external subject matter experts (SMEs) in conducting detailed technical
analysis to support the identification and resulting impact of technologies in the areas of
aircraft structural design.
Tecolote Research. government agencies since 1973. Benzakein Engines
Propulsion and Power Center.. configuration.
The TAG is a blue-ribbon panel of seven experts and industry leaders who contributed
comprehensive expertise in all aspects of the study: aircraft fuel-saving technology and
design on engines.

A more comprehensive
technology cost model was also developed. regional jet (RJ). and ticket prices for consumers.
6
. the final phase of the study.
Following the completion of Phase III. This included generating and quantifying user
factors from the technology packages for performance modeling based on Piano 53
default parameters. to limit scope and therefore maximize the quality of the work. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
2.2. focusing on development. further analyses was completed by ICCT to
estimate the impact of cost-effective technology introduction on U. integration.S. There are a few reasons behind
this.1. fleet-wide fuel
consumption. and contributors
Phase Task Contributor
Identifying & quantifying potential improvement from fuel-saving
TAG
technologies
Phase I
Identifying technology packages by scenario TAG
Defining cost model data structure and high-level methodologies Tecolote
Defining Piano user factors for improved aircraft modeling Tecolote
Phase II Piano modeling for aircraft fuel burn reduction ICCT
Defining cost modeling assumptions Tecolote
Comprehensive modeling of recurring and nonrecurring
Phase III Tecolote
manufacturing costs and operational savings
2. and regional jet) as well as the baseline aircraft for each type. and small twin aisle (STA). With those user factors. On the cost side. Phase I defined the cost model data
structure and high-level methodologies.3. structures. Study phases
The study was divided into three phases:
Phase I identified the three aircraft types included in the study (single aisle.3. this
study focuses on the three most representative aircraft types in the fleet today: single
aisle (SA).
Table 2 presents the different phases of the study and the main contributor of each task
within the phases. CO2 emissions.
Phase II assessed the aircraft-level efficiency improvements of the technology packages
for each EIS year and aircraft class. Main parameters
AIRCRAFT TYPES AND REFERENCE AIRCRAFT
Ideally this study would encompass all commercial passenger aircraft types available
in the market but. acquisition. More detailed information about this
tool is provided in Section 2. small twin
aisle.
Phase III.
Table 2 Study phases.1. tasks. estimated the costs to manufacturers and
operators of improved aircraft. It also grouped
discrete technology improvement packages in two scenario years to qualify the
advancements in propulsion. First. there is more publicly available data on these three aircraft types compared
3 Piano 5 is a commercial aircraft performance model used in this study. and
maintenance. the fuel burn performance of each aircraft
type was quantified with and without technology improvements. and aerodynamics relevant to improvements in
fuel efficiency for each scenario.

800
Design range (km) 5. turboprops. Department of Transportation.ICCT REPORT
with other types (e.000 30.
Table 3 Select parameters of reference aircraft
Reference Aircraft
Parameter Airbus A320-200 Boeing B777-200ER Embraer E190AR
Length (m) 37.S.320 14. according to U.7 36.000 298. business jets.g.800
Design payload (kg) 13.9 (1) 60. and large twin aisles).. two of the types. BTS Form 41 Traffic (2014)
7
. Finally.S. The chosen reference aircraft and a few chosen
parameters are presented in Table 3.630
Seat capacity 150-180 314-440 94-114
EIS year 1988 1997 2004
With sharklets/winglets
(1)
4 U. SA and STA.
Representative aircraft were chosen using Ascend Online Fleets based on historical and
future sales within each respective class.
For each aircraft type studied. a reference aircraft was chosen to compare the
incremental upfront costs and fuel and maintenance savings of improved aircraft. providing a benchmark to which results
can be compared. while Figure 2 presents a three-view comparison of
these aircraft. Department of Transportation (2014) they accounted
for more than 77% of revenue passenger kilometers (RPK) flown in the United States4
and therefore present the largest potential to reduce fuel burn by introduction of more
fuel-efficient aircraft.000 51. Secondly. more
than 50% of global aircraft sales in 2010 and 64% in 2015 were of these three types.000 9. were studied in the ICAO fuel
burn technology review in 2010 (ICAO 2010a).100 4.2
Wingspan (m) 33.7 (1)
Max takeoff weight (kg) 77.
Additionally.6 63.9 28.

COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY

E190AR baseline
A320-200 baseline
B777-200 baseline

Figure 2 Piano 5 reference aircraft 3-view

8

ICCT REPORT

EIS YEARS
ICAO’s CO2 standard will be implemented for applications for new type certification in
2020. After taking into account the approximately three to five years needed for new type
certification, a 2024 EIS year was selected for the near-term scenarios. Furthermore, to
keep this study in line with the ICAO fuel burn technology review that has a 10-year lag
between scenarios, an EIS year of 2034 was chosen for mid-term scenarios.

SCENARIOS
To provide multiple observation points with varying future technology implementation
levels, three technology deployment scenarios of increasing ambition were included for
each EIS year. In total, seven technology scenarios were assessed in this study for each
aircraft type: the reference scenario and three technology scenarios for each analysis
year. Table 4 presents a definition of each scenario.

Table 4 Technology deployment scenarios5
Scenario Definition
The reference aircraft without technological improvements. This is the
benchmark scenario, to which all other technology scenarios were compared
Reference
to evaluate the benefits (fuel and maintenance savings) and costs (technology
maturation, development, upfront manufacturing costs) of added technologies.
A best estimate of real-life aircraft that would be released in the respective EIS
Evolutionary
(2024 or 2034) year under “business as usual” technology improvements.
A modest increase of technology improvements compared with the
Moderate Evolutionary scenario, driven by either policy or fiscal factors such as
unexpectedly high fuel prices.
Implementation of all cutting-edge fuel-saving technologies in development
Aggressive for conventional airframe designs5, irrespective of whether they are likely to be
economically reasonable.

2.2. TECHNOLOGIES ASSESSED
In Phase I of this study, aircraft fuel-saving technologies that are either available today or
in some stage of development (i.e., those at TRL6 3 and above) at the time of study were
evaluated. The exclusion of speculative technologies helped limit modeling uncertainty.
For the same reason, technologies that require larger changes in aircraft design and
architecture (e.g., blended wing body and truss-braced wings) were excluded. As a
consequence, the potential fuel burn reductions for 2034 scenarios assessed in this
study can be considered somewhat conservative.

Figure 3 presents some representative technologies and their general placement on an
aircraft. Drawing upon the list of technologies, six advanced technology development
scenarios were created for each aircraft type: one for each scenario level—Evolutionary,
Moderate, and Aggressive—per EIS year. This step included an assessment to ensure that
mutually exclusive technologies (e.g., natural laminar flow and hybrid laminar flow) were
not integrated into the same structure (e.g., wings/empennage) in the same technology
package. The comprehensive list of technologies for each scenario is presented in
Appendices A (airframe) and B (engine).

5 Advanced aircraft architectures, such as blended wing body (BWB) and strut-braced wing aircraft, were
excluded from this study to limit modeling uncertainty.
6 Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is a scale of technology maturity originally developed by NASA. The lowest
levels (TRL 1 to 3) are dedicated to preliminary concept up to proof of concept, TRL 4 and 5 are stages of
laboratory and relevant environment demonstration, TRL 6 and 7 are stages of prototype testing, and the
latest stages (8 and 9) are implementation of technology into a vehicle and flight testing. Detailed definitions
of each TRL can be found at https://esto.nasa.gov/files/trl_definitions.pdf

9

COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY

com/what-we-do/ascend-data/aircraft-airline-data/
8 In this study the R1 point (maximum range at maximum structural payload) is used as the reference point for
aircraft resizing. Fuselage size and geometry. Ltd. sweep angle. 2034 Evolutionary.. Assessing the fuel
efficiency of aircraft under a given deployment scenario was a multistep process. number of
seats.3. and Aggressive. aspect ratio. FUEL BURN MODELING
Based upon these technology deployment scenarios. including component geometry. When multiple Piano aircraft are available for the same
aircraft type due to variations in maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) or engine. the
Ascend fleet database7 was consulted to determine the most prominent variant based
on the global fleet as of April 2013. and
engine thrust. GasTurb was
chosen due to its ability to model detailed performance of aircraft engines.
For each of the six advanced technology deployment scenarios (2024 Evolutionary. pressure.
Based on these user factors.1. Moderate. subsonic aircraft certified to civil aviation standards.
and temperature values at all major stations within the engine. etc.
the appropriate aircraft model was identified from the Piano database for each reference
aircraft defined in Section 2.
while the performance modeling for engines was performed using GasTurb 10. The optimization
parameters used in this process are MTOW. to represent improved aircraft
with advanced technologies incorporated. wing area. and Aggressive) for each
aircraft type.2. these baseline
aircraft were modified (by changing the appropriate Piano user factors) and resized.
Moderate.ICCT REPORT
2. flow. A general
description of the aircraft and engine technology modeling approaches is provided
below.
GasTurb outputs include the engine’s specific fuel consumption (SFC). This process resulted in a set of new user factors or performance
parameters unique to the improved aircraft. is a
commercially available program that uses pre-defined engine configurations while
permitting input of important parameters. Piano 5. First.
ENGINE TECHNOLOGY MODELING
GasTurb.
Based on the technology deployment scenarios defined in Section 2.2.
while keeping payload and range capability8 constant.
AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY MODELING
Piano includes a database of detailed technical and performance data for conventional.. a commercial aircraft
performance modeling tool developed by Lyssis.ascendworldwide. was used for aircraft modeling. Ltd. the engine performance modeling software used in this study. using nomenclature
7 http://www. a set of Piano user factor multipliers indicating technology impact on
the aircraft characteristics and performance were developed by SMEs identified
by Tecolote. number of crew.
11
. the fuel efficiency of the improved
aircraft for each aircraft type and EIS year was evaluated.
commercial.
were kept constant. the final improved aircraft was obtained through an
optimized resizing process with the objective to minimize fuel burn. which is not
possible in Piano. with additional detail presented in Appendix B. and operational parameters such as passenger weight.

S.
Combinations in red indicate the most common missions. y axis) flown by each aircraft type. airports in 2010. Another output used in the latter phases of
this study is the engine thrust/weight ratio that. combined with thrust values from Piano. flown within and to or from U.
FUEL BURN CALCULATION
To estimate fuel burn reductions as a result of technology implementation.9 The matrices were derived based
on 2010 payload and mission lengths and frequencies flown by each reference aircraft
type from the BTS Form-41 T100 data for U. each
scenario-modified aircraft was “flown” on a set of typical missions for each of the three
aircraft types within their payload-range envelope.
9 A payload-range envelope is defined by the aircraft capability of carrying the maximum amount of payload
authorized under its airworthiness certification over a certain range.
estimates the engine weight used in cost estimation.
12
. x axis) and payload (in kilograms. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
consistent with current industry standards. international (inbound and outbound)
and domestic flights. Figure 4 shows the combination of stage lengths (flight distance
in kilometers. in terms of stage length and
payload.S.

The tool and its documentations can be downloaded from http://www.7%) was used to project the future activity of STA aircraft. while RJs with seat capacity above 90 and STA aircraft
accounted for 1%13 and 11.
14
. and to conceptualize strategies to reduce GHG
emissions and local air pollution. larger RJs were selected for analysis in this study due to their
prevalence in models under development and their growing importance in the U.
First. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
to as the Roadmap model in this report)11.9% (FAA 2015b). traffic.
»» Small Twin Aisle: In contrast to SA aircraft.
11 The Roadmap model is an Excel-based tool designed to help policymakers see trends. While this share is relatively small. assuming the improved aircraft in this study
are introduced to the U. and this value was used to inform the regional jet
activity forecast through 2050.1% per year. domestic
RPKs. SA aircraft accounted for 65% of
activities in the United States.
ACTIVITY FORECAST
The Roadmap model uses activity forecast in RPKs to project future fuel consumption. fleet. hence a different method was used to
calculate future activity. The FAA reports of 2014-2035 annual activity growth that were
most representative of the three aircraft types studied were used:
»» Single Aisle: The FAA estimates annual activity growth for domestic flights
performed by mainline carriers to be 1. Department of Transportation.S.S. market starting in their respective EIS years. the annual
activity growth forecast for international scheduled passenger traffic by mainline air
carriers (3.S. and STA)
were calculated based on domestic and international (to and from the United States)
traffic data obtained from BTS Form 41. 2015b) was used to develop a simple activity forecast for each
aircraft type. this annual
activity growth was used to forecast the growth of SA aircraft in the United States. BTS Form 41 Traffic (2014)
13 RJ aircraft with 90+ seats are responsible for one-third of total RJ RPKs. which represent 11% of U. respectively. RJ. This analysis
focuses on the United States due to the availability of robust data on its aircraft fleet
and traffic forecast. assess emissions and
energy-efficiency implications of different policy options. twin aisle aircraft are typically used
for international flights to and from the United States.
»» Regional Jets: The FAA projects that regional carriers will increase their passenger-
seat-miles by 2. Since domestic flights
performed by mainline air carriers are dominated by the use of SA aircraft.
These activity shares were applied to historical activity data in the FAA Aerospace
Forecast to obtain projected U.
The five-year activity forecast for each aircraft type as calculated using this
methodology is presented in Table 5.S.org/global-transportation-roadmap-model
12 U. For that reason. activity by aircraft type. In 2014.
Information from 2014 BTS T-100 Segment flights data12 and FAA Aerospace Forecast
2015-2035 (FAA.
theicct. According to FAA. the annual
activity growth for different markets is different.5% of all U.S.S. the shares of activity (in RPK) performed by each aircraft type (SA.

COST MODELING
Cost modeling of the improved aircraft was conducted by Tecolote Research.459 407 24
2045 1. the aircraft survival curve characterized by a Weibull distribution
function developed by the ICCT (Rutherford.761 585 29
Units of billion RPK. 2000 to 2050. For an in-depth description of
methodology and assumptions. both for growth and
replacement.
15
. This transition period extends from the EIS date of an aircraft until the aircraft
is used for all new deliveries of a given year. This
section provides a summary of that methodology. and finally 100% of new deliveries in 2029. Subsequently it is used to calculate the share of vehicle activity (reference
vs. Figure 5
summarizes the cost models used (on the far left column) and the major components
of the TOC (far right column). parameter).603 488 26
2050 1. & Singh.328 339 21
2040 1. For example. Kharina.
SURVIVAL CURVE
In the Roadmap model.
TRANSITION PERIOD
In the fleet-wide fuel burn analysis. and fuel cost over a given operational period. please refer to the Final Report of the Aviation Fuel
Efficiency Technology Assessment (Tecolote. 28% of all new delivery in
2025.100 236 17
2030 1. 2012) was used to inform
the percentage of new (improved) aircraft coming into the fleet. an assumption of a six-year linear transition period
was used.209 283 19
Projection
2035 1.001 197 16
2025 1. a 2024 EIS parameter aircraft
is assumed to fulfill 14% of new deliveries in its class in 2024.
The incremental cost assessment of the implemented technologies to reference aircraft
was performed on the base of total ownership cost (TOC). which comprises operator
capital cost. 2015b) 2010 822 145 13
2015 911 164 14
2020 1. 2015). maintenance cost.
Year Single aisle Small twin aisle Regional jet
2000 722 128 11
Historical 2005 859 152 13
(FAA. The tools used in the cost estimation analysis and each
element of TOC presented in the diagram are discussed in the following subsections.
2.ICCT REPORT
Table 5 Historical and projected activity by aircraft type for commercial aircraft over 90 seats
capacity.5.

report. Tools used
Three distinct cost estimation tools were used in this study.
structured. basis of estimate (BOE) documentation.
ACEIT
ACEIT is a suite of software tools/applications that standardize the estimating process
to develop. and presentation development.nasa.
PTIRS COST MODEL
The Probabilistic Technology Investment Ranking System (PTIRS) is a “tool that is used
to build a business case for incorporating a technology or suite of technologies on a
future aircraft. 2015)
2. Key ACEIT features include a cost-estimate builder. automated reporting. search.pdf
15 ACEIT functionality. meaning that costs are computed at the component level
based primarily on the weight of the aircraft components.gov/sites/default/files/files/31_PTIRS_Update2_Tagged. and maintenance costs.com/aceit-suite-home
16
.”14 PTIRS was developed for and sponsored by the NASA ERA project. https://www. charts. and methodology and inflation libraries. and prepare extensive
basis of estimate documentation. generate management level reports. production. In this study. develop cost estimating relationships (CERs). and retrieval.15
14 https://www. cost and schedule uncertainty
analysis.aceit.
what-if analyses. PTIRS was used
to perform analyses of system development.5.
It is a weight-driven model. and robust cost estimates. and share cost estimates.1. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
Process Based Technology Maturation
Non-Recurring
Cost Model Costs (TRL 1-7) Average
Amortized
(Engineering Build-up) Unit Price
System
NASA Development Development
Cost Model Cost
(PTIRS Heritage) Operator
Capital
Cost
NASA Aircraft
Recurring
Delta AUPC
Production Residual
(Average Unit
Cost Model Value
Production Cost)
(PTIRS Heritage)
NASA Aircraft
Maintenance Maintenance
Cost Model Cost
(PTIRS Heritage)
Fuel Cost for
Operational
Years
Figure 5 Total ownership cost determination and components (Tecolote.
conduct what-if analyses. statistical analysis.
database development. ACEIT enables analysts to build concise. where
all the calculations were ported into the Automated Cost Estimating Integrated Tools
(ACEIT) framework.

The data was processed using JACS to generate a joint cost/schedule
confidence estimate that includes risk due to uncertainty and the correlation between
cost and schedule.
ACEIT contains the fuel projection model. Key parameters in cost analysis
Given the high level of uncertainty involved in cost analysis that looks far into the future. and risk. 2015). data as per April 2014. discounted cash
flow. a
manufacturer’s profit margin of 20% was integrated into the aircraft unit price. 2015). In addition to the PTIRS equations. schedule uncertainty.
After considering potential time horizons relevant to aircraft investment and
purchasing decisions. respectively.com/aceit-suite-home/product-info/jacs
17 http://www.ascendworldwide. the average first-owner lifetime of 17
years was used17 with a depreciation rate of 6%. could undervalue future fuel
and maintenance savings relative to upfront capital costs.ICCT REPORT
ACEIT is a productivity tool providing a robust framework for constructing and running
cost models. time-dependent
(TD) costs and task duration estimates for a series of networked tasks. In comparison.5.aceit. 2013a).
17
.2. which falls on the
high range of weighted average cost of capital in the air transport industry range (7%
to 9%) according to a 2013 study by IATA (IATA. uncertainty for
each time and duration. as an approximation
of a reasonable cost of capital for airlines (Tecolote. Tecolote Research analyzed time-independent (TI) costs.
2. along
with technology maturity amortization costs spread over the 10-year production run for
each EIS year scenario. Costs are identified and modeled at the component and activity level and
organized within a work breakdown structure (WBS). JACS
provides the ability to assess cost uncertainty.
16 https://www. To calculate aircraft residual value.
a simulation modeling framework on ACEIT was developed for this study to allow
probabilistic calculations using parameters in a range instead of a single deterministic
value. For every aircraft delivery.
In the study. and correlations between tasks and between cost and duration
for each task. forecasted cash flow analysis.
an essential feature in performing technology maturation assessments.
A discount rate of 9% was chosen as a baseline case in this study.
JACS
JACS16 is an ACEIT tool that has the capability of integrating cost and schedule analysis. Deterministic values were chosen for the
parameters listed in Table 6 to allow apples-to-apples comparison between scenarios
and between aircraft types. and Monte-Carlo simulation capability. depending on
the aircraft type. In addition. This value. Table 6 and Table 7 present the key deterministic and probabilistic parameters
used in the cost analysis. the average first-owner lifetime of
an aircraft is 17 years while the average lease period is four to six years. a seven-year period was chosen to calculate operational (fuel and
maintenance) costs (Tecolote.com.

priority was placed on enabling sensitivity analysis of
the fuel price and fuel price increase parameters. Composite materials for
aircraft structure are lighter but cost more than conventional aluminum. as summarized
in Table 7. Probabilistic values were chosen for these variables. the market capture parameters used in this study are based on historical market
capture of each of the reference aircraft based on Ascend data.
Table 7 Basic parameters in cost estimation .deterministic
Parameter Value
Discount Rate 9%
Profit Margin for Manufacturers 20%
Technology maturation amortization period (years) 10
Production period (years) 10
Operational period (years) 7
First-owner lifetime for residual value estimate (years) 17
Equipment depreciation rate (declining balance) 6%
Given recent fuel price volatility.
Base fuel price and annual price increase parameters were developed using the 2015
EIA Annual Energy Outlook jet fuel price projection up to year 2040 (EIA. 2015). aircraft market capture.03% Probabilistic
SA: 38%
Market Capture TA: 32% — — Optional
RJ: 37%
Composite Fraction Vary By Scenario Probabilistic
Design Heritage Factors Vary By Scenario Probabilistic
Development Complexity Factors Vary By Scenario Probabilistic
Production Complexity Factors Vary By Scenario Probabilistic
Maintenance Complexity Factors Vary By Scenario Probabilistic
Maintenance Interval Adjustment Vary By Scenario Probabilistic
*Based on EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2015 (EIA.probabilistic
Probabilistic
Parameter Most Likely Low High / Optional
Base fuel price (US dollars per
$2. since
its technology maturity and development costs are amortized across the number of
manufactured units. 2015)
Since the cost model used is weight-based.94 — — Optional
gallon)*
Annual Fuel Price Increase* 0. While
market capture (or market share) for each aircraft may and often will change over the
years. Likewise.97% -1.23% 3. a composite fraction of each aircraft
(both reference and improved) had to be determined. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
Table 6 Basic parameters in cost estimation . Unfortunately
there is very limited information regarding the composite material fraction in each
18
. or
the share of a given market segment captured by one manufacturer’s model. was found
to be an important driver of an aircraft type’s price and the program’s success.

as well as maintenance complexity factor and interval
adjustment for each scenario.4. which aim to indicate how much more difficult.
the more advanced an aircraft component is. or somewhere
in between. As an example.
Tecolote Research defined design heritage as “a way of defining the percentage of the
component being altered due to the inclusion of new technology to adjust development
and production costs. 0.5. maintenance interval adjustment is a parameter to indicate how much more (or
less) frequently an improved component will need to receive major maintenance. including maintenance complexity
factor and interval adjustment (4.4.
and integrate new technologies into a new aircraft. which means a completely new design
for the component. Lump sum nonrecurring costs
are amortized over the total number of aircraft projected for delivery in a 10-year
18 See the following sections of Tecolote. The same principal goes to production and
maintenance complexity factors. Therefore Tecolote’s SMEs used their engineering judgment
to determine the composite fraction of each aircraft component for each scenario. It consists of amortized nonrecurring costs and the recurring cost in the form of
average unit production cost of the improved aircraft.
and low value. the design heritage factors for the fuselage of SA 2024
aggressive scenario are 0. Total ownership cost components
As mentioned in the previous section.
SMEs’ expert judgment was also used to estimate design heritage and design
and production complexity.18 Since the framework cost model is weight-based—
meaning that as an aircraft component gets heavier costs increase—and is built upon
a database of all-aluminum aircraft. factors like design heritage. minus the residual
value over the first ownership life of the aircraft. high.ICCT REPORT
representative aircraft type.
maintenance cost. which means a full reuse of an existing design.3.
2.” The value can be one.3).1).5. compared with its
reference component.
»» Amortized Nonrecurring Costs consist of the overall cost to develop. and fuel cost over a certain operational period. the TOC is the sum of operator capital cost. factors were developed to capture the cost effects
(positive or negative) of advanced technologies independent of weight. This
parameter affects the maintenance cost calculation of the entire aircraft. and maintenance costs.19
Development complexity is a measure of the complexity of an aircraft component
design relative to the reference aircraft. mature. production complexity (4.
Finally. 2015 for additional detail: Design heritage and development
complexity (4.
Operator Capital Cost is the estimated cost for an operator to purchase an improved
aircraft. which may cost more to develop and produce than its all-metal counterpart. Each of these components and a
summary of methodology to calculate them are discussed below. and
uncertainty factors were built in.
19 See the following sections of Tecolote.73 (most likely) and 1 (high).4.
and maintenance complexity factors are needed in order to better estimate costs.3.1). 2015 for additional detail: Design heritage (4.2 and Appendix I). For example. design heritage factors for each
subsystem of an (improved) aircraft are defined in three values: the most likely. In addition.4.63 (low). zero. design and production complexity. an aircraft component is to produce and maintain.4.
Due to this disconnect. to account for uncertainty. the more composite material may be used
by weight. and
therefore costly.
19
.

For example. taking into consideration fleet
attrition and fleet growth. 2015 for specific development complexity factors by aircraft type and scenario. with a value that ranges from zero to one.20 The more schedule compression needed. It includes manufacturing of
all aircraft parts and components. for example).
the (most likely) development complexity factors for SA core engine in the
2024 evolutionary scenario is 1. The future market (delivery)
forecast was based on Embraer Market Outlook.
In this study. subcontractor
costs. all other things being equal.
»» Development Cost: This is the cost allocated to integrate a matured technology
into the development of aircraft design up to producing the first unit.2 of Tecolote. as well as overhead and management costs associated with production
activities.
»» Maturation Cost: Maturation cost is the cost required to advance a certain
technology from an initial concept (TRL 1) to a marketable product (TRL 9). Production complexity factors capture
additional (or reduced) costs of an aircraft component with new technology based
on a comparison of its production complexity relative to the technology level and
production capabilities of the reference aircraft. and 37% were adopted
for SA. labor.21
»» Recurring Production Cost includes all costs incurred in manufacturing and
assembling an aircraft to be sold to an operator. composite.
22 See Section 2. Tecolote Research. respectively.. 2015 for the detailed methodology used to determine the schedule and cost for
new technology maturation.4.
Development complexity identifies the change in difficulty of developing a new
aircraft component with new technology relative to the baseline.7 of the Tecolote. total production cost is calculated by estimating the overall production
costs for the specified aircraft deployment scenario for a 10-year production run. Tecolote used the JACS tool to generate
probabilistic cost data for each technology maturation effort.
20
. tooling infrastructure. with support from its SMEs.
two other previously introduced parameters are also important: design
heritage and development complexity factor.
the higher the cost to reflect both the resources needed to complete the process
sooner and the risk associated with it. 2015 for a discussion of how these market capture assumptions were developed. design
heritage estimates the percentage of a given component being altered due
to the inclusion of new technology. representing 20% higher development costs
compared to the SA baseline. STA. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
production run for each EIS period.2. production
complexity. 32%.
The total production quantity was determined for each aircraft type via a two-step
analysis: market forecast and market capture assessment. Inc. and overall production quantity.22
20 See section 4. While
the PTIRS CER used to estimate the development cost is predominantly
based on weight and material type (aluminum vs. Based on 2011-2012 Ascend data and additional comparison
with 2015 FAA data. calculated
maturation costs for each technology based on the current TRL. the EIS year.4.
In this study. As previously indicated.
21 See Appendix J of Tecolote. and RJ.
and whether or not the natural completion schedule (or the time needed to bring
the technology to pass TRL 7) needs to be compressed in order for a technology
to be available for a given EIS year. Three key variables impact production costs: design heritage. market capture assumptions of 38%.

Hence.
STA.
Maintenance Costs are calculated based on the expected costs to maintain the
advanced airframe and engine maintenance in operation. This total production cost is divided by the
total production quantity to arrive at an average unit production cost per vehicle.1% for SA. For this study. 2012). In comparison.
Fuel burn (and CO2 emissions) were calculated based on activity (in RPK).
2. and RJ [90-120 seats] =
1%) of total activity in the United States. seven or 17 years).
Residual Value is the economic value of an aircraft remaining when it is sold to its
second owner..6.
was calculated using 2014 BTS Form-41 data. In this study.5%. BTS Form 41 Traffic (2014). and 2.
Fuel Costs are calculated based on the expected annual usage of fuel for the aircraft
over seven operational years considered in the study. with an additional 20% profit margin for the
manufacturer. 3. First.
21
. 2012) for each type. in this
study.ICCT REPORT
This cost estimation calculates the overall impact of assuming a learning curve on the
production labor inherent to the vehicle. 2015). This value is a summation of the Amortized Nonrecurring Cost
and Average Unit Production Cost.
average annual growth values from FAA Forecast were used: 1.
The analysis was done using the Roadmap model with the Piano 5 modeling as an input. The overall operator investment cost for a specific aircraft is the AUP
for all aircraft purchased during a 10-year production period of the aircraft.S. For activities in 2015 and beyond.
»» Average Unit Price (AUP) is the estimated price an operator will pay for an
improved aircraft. From this.
Operation costs that encompass landing fees. historical aircraft efficiency values (2000-2010) were taken from
previous ICCT work (Rutherford et. the average first-owner lifetime of
an aircraft is 17 years.S.
For the reference case. as estimated by Tecolote
using Ascend data (Tecolote. and passenger support are not
included in the analysis as it was assumed that these costs are insensitive to the fuel
efficiency of an aircraft. with the calculated average
aircraft efficiency value for each type in 2015 adopted as the efficiency baseline. maintenance
costs are calculated annually over seven operational years. the annual aircraft usage
(by hour) is determined by type and age (see Rutherford et al.al. A
23 U. Residual value is estimated based upon the depreciation of the aircraft
over a period of time based upon a declining balance method.e.7%..23 These values were used to calculate the
historical and baseline activity (in RPK) for each type. the
annual fuel consumption by age for the reference aircraft for each type was determined
using its average mission fuel burn as modeled in Piano. STA= 11. crew. including domestic and international flights. FLEET-WIDE FUEL SAVINGS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS
This section describes how fuel burn and CO2 emission reductions were estimated for
new deliveries of improved commercial aircraft with more than 90 seats in the U. the total fuel burn for
each reference aircraft can be determined for each operation year parameter (i. with the residual value
calculated as the AUP less the depreciation. fleet. and RJ respectively (FAA 2015b).9%.
the percentage of activity by type (SA=65% RPK. The resulting total of all aircraft annual costs for seven operational
years is calculated and provides the total maintenance cost for the respective scenario. Department of Transportation.

and that
the aircraft is in operation for the entire first-owner lifetime of 17 years. This section presents the assumptions used to estimate potential
changes in ticket prices as a result of greater investments in fuel-efficient aircraft. respectively (Tecolote.
2. an aircraft with EIS date of 2024 will cover 100% of new deliveries in 2029. which assumes no improvements to the reference aircraft in the base
case. and 1. STA.
For example. TICKET PRICE SAVINGS ESTIMATION
Depending upon prevailing market conditions.3 for the definition of aircraft residual value.
22
. STA. The potential carriage of belly freight was not
considered in this analysis. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
“frozen technology” baseline assuming no aircraft efficiency improvement from 2015
until the improved aircraft EIS date (either 2024 or 2034) was adopted to align the
comparison between fleet-wide fuel consumption and emission savings to the study’s
cost methodology. Aircraft
were assumed to operate at 100% load factor over 167. an airline may pass some costs or savings
on to customers.
and RJ.
and an aircraft with EIS date of 2034 will cover 100% of new deliveries in 2039. The transition period in this study was assumed to be six years. and 100 seats for SA.7. as outlined above. 881. it is assumed that airlines own the aircraft they operate. considering fuel prices and fuel price increase
assumptions used in the study (see Table 7). 2015).5. respectively. is compared with the total ownership
cost of the baseline aircraft. taking into account the potential residual value that the
airline may recuperate at the end of the operational time frame. as a result the potential ticket price reductions estimated may
be considered somewhat conservative. and RJ aircraft.24 Consistent to the
operational parameters used in the cost analysis of this study.
24 See section 2.394 flights
per year are assigned to SA.
In this calculation. Undiscounted
total ownership cost for each aircraft. 326. 419.

3 12.
3.6 21.
The final subsection discusses sensitivity analyses to see how discount rates. and market risk affect the analyses results and.2 of Tecolote.9
A320-200 20.7 15.
Table 8 Fuel burn by type and scenario
Fuel burn (g fuel/RPK.0 13.26
25 Note that the payload/range combinations used to estimate fuel efficiency in Table 9 vary by aircraft type.S.0 10.2%) (-40.
The first subsection of this section presents the results of the fuel burn reduction
achievable using emerging technologies under the six advanced technology scenarios
(three for 2024 EIS and three for 2034 EIS) studied.5 17.7
23. fuel
prices.3%) (-42.25 In
2024. assuming all savings
attributed to the fuel burn technologies are passed on to consumers. Full details of the cost results can be
found in Tecolote’s report (Tecolote.9%) (-40.
26 See section 4. and modeling the impact of technology application onto a
reference aircraft using Piano 5. 2015 for a detailed discussion regarding technology maturation costs.7%)
As shown in Table 8 the implementation of fuel-saving technologies results in
significant fuel burn reductions for all technology scenarios and aircraft types. a 40% fuel burn reduction.4%) (-46.7%) (-34.5%) (-32.5 21.8 19.2 12.0%) (-34. while the third subsection
provides a first order estimate of the effect on ticket prices.8%) (-32.9
Aisle 200ER (-27. ICCT REPORT
3. This
means that larger fraction of RJ emissions come from the LTO (landing and take-off) cycle.6
Jet (-27.2%) (-40.2 12. unless otherwise specified.
complicating efforts to compare the fuel efficiency between aircraft types. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 8. change from reference in parentheses)
2024 2034
Aircraft Reference
type aircraft Ref Evo Mod Agg Evo Mod Agg
Single 15. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The methods described in Section 2 were used to predict the fuel burn impacts and
costs associated with deploying various fuel-saving technologies on EIS 2024 and
2034 aircraft. 2015). technology package
assignment by scenario.7
E190AR 32. potentially.8 13.9%) (-39.
albeit with cost increases due to the need to accelerate technology maturation.5%) (-33.8 19.1 13. the fuel burn of SA aircraft can be reduced from 20 grams of fuel per RPK
(reference) to as low as 12 grams (aggressive scenario). policy instruments
to accelerate aircraft efficiency improvements.3%) (-33.
23
.1
Aisle (-25.7%) (-44.4. and
relates these to the country’s stated climate protection goals for the aviation sector. which is more fuel
intensive per kilometer flown than the cruise cycle.1%) (-47. The fourth
subsection translates aircraft level fuel burn and CO2 reductions for the U. fuel consumption results and costs are presented for one
representative aircraft. For example.2%) (-45. The second subsection presents
the cost-effectiveness of the implemented technologies in terms of the relative TOC to
the owners/operators of the advanced aircraft by scenario.9 13.1.1%)
Small Twin B777.0%)
Regional 23. estimating the fuel burn impacts of advanced technology
scenarios involve several steps: technology identification. regional jet aircraft
are flown over shorter distances compared to both single aisle and small twin aisle aircraft (see Figure 4). In this report.3 15. fleet. FUEL BURN
As described in Section 2. 17.

The fuel burn reductions should not be interpreted as a prediction of what a new aircraft
in 2024 or 2034 will have. comparison can only be done as
technology groups (i. but instead as range of fuel efficiencies that new aircraft
designs could have in 2024 or 2034 under various scenarios of technology development
and deployment. This is due to the fact that fuel burn reductions are generally multiplicative.
24
.
The potential fuel burn reduction for the three aircraft types vary somewhat due to
differences in available technologies along with the types of missions flown. 2010a) and the
NASA ERA project (Nickol & Haller. but all fall
within the same range. The fuel burn reduction potential for new aircraft designs ranges
from 26% to 42% in 2024. and from 33% to 47% in 2034.
rather than additive. for the mid and longer stage length flights typical for single and
twin aisle aircraft types. 2016). engines.
Because the fuel burn impacts of individual technology were assessed by integrating
the technology on a resized and re-optimized aircraft. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
Allowing an additional 10 years of technology maturation and development increases
the potential fuel burn reduction to 46%. STA. and structures) as presented in Figure
6 for SA. and RJ aircraft.e. These values are consistent
with the findings of the ICAO Long Term Technology Goal study (ICAO. aerodynamics.. These scenarios should not be considered comprehensive since they
are limited to conventional tube-and-wing aircraft architecture. Note that the aggregate fuel burn reduction obtained by
applying the complete technology package (marked as circles on Figure 6) is typically
smaller than the simple sum of fuel burn reduction attributed to the three technology
groups. and do not include
alternative architectures such as blended wing body designs that might provide even
larger improvements.

provides cost
savings for manufacturers and benefits to airlines in terms of commonality in parts and
reduced training requirements for pilots.1 replacement
A320-200neo 17. version. the fuel consumption reduction gained by the
two new-generation SA aircraft is on par with the estimated fuel burn reduction in the
2024 Evolutionary scenario from engine technologies alone (see Figure 6). Re-engining an existing airframe with
an advanced engine. and 2024 Evolutionary aircraft
These findings. Boeing 777-300ER. an upcoming aircraft family in the STA class. compared with Boeing
777-8X—its upcoming direct successor.
Therefore. GE claims that engine will have 10% lower
specific fuel consumption than its predecessor (GE90-115B) installed in the B777-300ER. the study’s
STA reference aircraft.1
B777-8X 20.airbus.5 2024 Evolutionary
Single Aisle 2024evo 15
E190AR 32.
reference
A320-200 20.com/commercial/737max/#/design-highlights/max-passenger-appeal/
29 http://www.
The Boeing B777X.9
Small Twin Aisle 2024evo 17.com/presscentre/hot-topics/a320neo/
28 http://www. shown here is its closest type. is expected to enter
into service in 2020. All of these aircraft claim fuel burn reductions smaller than
27 http://www. does not have a direct replacement in the emerging market.7
Regional Jet 2024evo 23.3
0 10 20 30 40
Fuel burn (average g/RPK)
Figure 7 Fuel burn of reference. which means there is no
significant change in structural and systems design. as expected. the GE9X. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
same passenger capacity as their replacement type. rather than developing a new “clean sheet” aircraft. advertises a 20% fuel savings
per seat compared with the current generation A320ceo (current engine option).com/stories/aviation-ge9x
26
.8
B777-200ER 23. and it will have a new. Comparing these values with subsystem fuel
burn reduction as presented in Figure 6. short for A320 new engine option.27 On
the other hand. Note that the Boeing 777-200ER. and then “flown” on the set
of missions presented in Figure 4. the upcoming Boeing 737 MAX advertises a 14% reduction in specific
fuel consumption compared with the current.ge.boeing.5
B777-300ER 23.28 The major
change in these two aircraft types comes from re-engining. emerging successor.
can be compared to each manufacturer’s own estimates of improvement. larger wing design on top of a new engine
developed by General Electric. The Airbus
A320neo (EIS 2016). which focus purely on improvements due to fuel efficiency technologies.29
There are a few new RJ aircraft types in the development pipeline expected to enter into
service in the next few years.6
E190 E2 29. somewhat newer.

oil price. making the purchase of that
aircraft cost effective for airlines over a seven-year time horizon.
Figure 8 presents the total ownership cost change for all aircraft types (SA.com/Pages/Ejets-190-E2. a
30 http://www..3.
It is clear that the fuel burn reductions seen in the Evolutionary (business as usual) cases
are larger than expected for near-term re-engined aircraft. 2015).” This is in contrast to the 2024 Evolutionary case in this
study. STA. COST MODELING RESULTS
A key aim of this study was to estimate the costs and benefits of developing and
deploying new fuel-efficiency technologies. The TOC calculation methodology is presented in brief in Section
2. taking into account technology maturation. production costs.e. seven years of fuel
and maintenance savings. and the residual value of the aircraft after the first-operator
lifetime of 17 years. Embraer E2.
aircraft development.embraercommercialaviation. 2015)
A negative value of TOC in Figure 8 means that the total cost of ownership for the
modeled aircraft is lower than the reference aircraft.
3. and fuel and maintenance savings. and
RJ) against the modeled fuel burn reduction obtained for each scenario. regulation.5.5% reduction from the baseline is possible. On the other hand. for example.) on aircraft efficiency. compared
with their respective reference aircraft as described in Section 2. We return to this observation
below when considering the relative roles of external pressure (i. The results shown
are based on a 9% discount rate. claims 16% fuel burn reduction per
seat from its predecessor30 while Bombardier CSeries claim to have a 20% fuel reduction
over “in production aircraft. and can be found in detail in the associated consultant report (Tecolote.aspx
27
.2. all relative to
the non-improved reference aircraft.ICCT REPORT
the finding of this study. which suggests a 27.3.
etc.
2024
10%
7 year TOC relative to base
2034
Net
Costs
0%
Net
Savings
-10%
20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Fuel Burn Reduction
2024 SA 2024 STA 2024 RJ 2034 SA 2034 STA 2034 RJ
Figure 8 Seven-year total ownership cost change for all aircraft types and deployment scenarios
(Tecolote. a 10-year production quantity run.

or a little less than 1% per year. as defined by having MTOWs or design ranges31 within
10% of the base aircraft.2% per year. fell by about 30% from 1980 to 2016.
If these trends continue. or range at 50% of an aircraft’s maximum structural payload. The
shaded areas around both trend lines (2024 and 2034) represent uncertainty in the
cost estimation. or about 60% of the potential improvements identified in this study.
Figure 9 compares the cost-effective improvements identified in this study for three
aircraft types to long-term trends in new design fuel efficiency on a fuel per RPK basis.
The analysis shows that. For the 2034 EIS scenarios.
normalized to the fuel burn of the reference aircraft used in this study (reference = 100). itself
calculated as maximum zero fuel weight (MZFW) minus operating empty weight (OEW). new design aircraft with approximately 25%
lower fuel burn are expected to be cost effective for operators. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
positive TOC value reflects a net cost to the owner/operator over seven years because
the resulting aircraft price increase outweighs the fuel and maintenance savings. Put another
way. and green circles denote regional jets. and small twin aisle aircraft.2 above) compared with
today’s aircraft. as indicated by their fuel
burn at EIS year. respectively. Blue. that is.
Since fuel burn is sensitive to payload and range capability. while solid circles represent aircraft
already into service and empty circles new types to be introduced in the foreseeable
future (“project aircraft”). This gap between market-driven fuel-efficiency
improvements and what is estimated to be cost effective given fuel price projections
represents an opportunity for additional CO2 emission reductions at net savings for
airlines and consumers. fuel burn reductions
of around 40% are projected to be cost-effective for operators over a seven-year
time horizon. the fuel and
maintenance savings for those aircraft offset the increased purchase price of more
technologically advanced aircraft.
As the figure indicates.
single aisle. only aircraft types similar
to those analyzed in this study. these results suggest substantial room for additional fuel-efficiency
improvements with net savings to operators. are included. the average fuel burn of new designs.
28
. the fuel burn of new EIS aircraft will fall another 10% through
2034. in 2024. design range is defined as Rmax. fully deploying the cost effective technologies identified in this study on new
aircraft designs would more than double the rate of expected fuel burn reductions
through 2034 to 2.
31 Here. red. With new aircraft that will be type-certified in the near term having
an estimated 9% to 13% fuel burn reduction (see Section 3.

33 3. as well as the comparison
of the operational cost incurred across the 17-year first-owner lifetime of the aircraft.9
∆ fuel +
— -$33.7 $49.1 $73.0
∆ AUP — $10. the owner would get roughly $3 in the form of
operational cost savings (fuel plus maintenance cost) in return over 17 years.5 — $13.5 $67. for every additional $1 spent on
purchasing a more advanced aircraft. As a reminder.6 $17.8 $83.2 $39. this calculation takes into account an
assumption of 20% profit margin from the manufacturer.1 -$56.90 2.81
29
.4 $15. ICCT REPORT
140
Reference RJ In service RJ Project RJ
Reference SA In service SA Project SA
Reference STA In service STA Project STA
Cost Effective
120
Fuel burn (g/RPK reference = 100)
Current state
of the art
100
BAU trendline
80
Cost effective
60
trendline
40
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Figure 9 Trends in new aircraft fuel burn by entry into service year.5 $22.5 $15.6 $22. even
without taking into account potential residual value of the aircraft in case it is sold to
a second owner after this period.1 $80.9 $13.5 $40.8 -$64. the benefit these owners would be able to reap over their ownership of the
aircraft is greater than what is described above.3 $14.1
price (AUP)
Fuel $111.4 $40.1 -$51.7 — -$49. 1980 to 2040
Notably.09 3. Table 9 presents the average unit price
of the reference aircraft and the improved aircraft by scenario.7 $15.9 $44.7 $15.0 $123.69 3.33 — 3.
The table suggests that. most airlines that own their aircraft operate them for longer than seven years.3 $42.
Therefore.6 $15.9 $26.3 $66. across all scenarios studied.2
maintenance
savings/∆ AUP — 3.9 -$45.
Table 9 Estimated first-owner lifetime costs for single aisle aircraft
2024 EIS (million USD) 2034 EIS (million USD)
Cost Ref Evo Mod Agg Ref Evo Mod Agg
Average unit
$29.9 $73.6 $15.4
Maintenance $22.

According to their calculation. based on EIA forecast fuel
prices (EIA. fleet in that study
compared to the partial fleet (single aisle. small twin aisle.S.S. fleet (including commercial SA. or more than 20% of total jet fuel consumption
from 2025 to 2050. fleet-wide fuel consumption and savings. An analysis of the NASA
ERA project (Metron. NASA ERA N+2 best
technologies would burn 396 Mtoe less than the No-N+2 case. aviation (~71
billion gallons of jet fuel) could be saved. the deployment of cost-effective new aircraft technologies could
reduce fuel consumption in the United States significantly.S. fleet-wide fuel savings
Figure 10 compares the fuel consumption of the U. This equals $285
billion (2015 dollars) in fuel savings over those 25 years. These larger results are
partly because of a more comprehensive calculation of the total U. U.3. FLEET-WIDE FUEL CONSUMPTION AND CO2 REDUCTIONS
This section analyzes fuel savings and CO2 emission reductions from implementing cost-
effective fuel burn technologies on aircraft starting in 2024 for the U. 2015) found that the best new technology scenario could save
approximately 20% in fuel compared with the baseline (no technology advancement)
in the period from 2025 to 2050. By 2050.
STA. and RJ with >90 seat capacity aircraft types) with and without the implementation
of cost-effective fuel burn technologies (25% in 2024 and 40% in 2034) up to 2050.
3. and larger regional jets) in
this study. The
methodology to calculate fleet-wide fuel savings was presented in Section 2. based on the fleet forecast presented in Table 5. As
seen from Figure 10.S.S.3. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
3.
30
.6. with increasing benefits each
decade. aircraft fleet. 2000 to 2050
These findings are quite consistent with other assessments. 2015).
70 250
Base Cost Effective Technology Improvement
60
200
Cumulative fuel savings (Mtoe)
50
Fuel consumption (Mtoe)
150
40
30
100
20
50
10
0 0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Figure 10 Estimated U.S. roughly 220 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) for U.1.

S. However.
3. the FAA submitted the U. which details strategies to achieve the
aspirational goal of carbon-neutral growth for U. implementing cost-effective fuel efficient
technologies (25% and 40% reduction from 2015 aircraft in 2024 in 2034. and therefore assuming no further technological
gains compared with today’s aircraft.S. on average flight tickets would fall between $9 and $20
for short-haul flights. aviation
on the global climate. fleet-wide CO2 emissions
Without technology implementation. if these savings were
passed on to the passengers.
Table 10 Potential airfare savings per passenger by scenario
2024 EIS 2034 EIS
Aircraft type Evo Mod Agg Evo Mod Agg
Single Aisle $11 $15 $17 $17 $20 $21
Small Twin Aisle $61 $72 $88 $84 $106 $105
Regional Jet $9 $10 $12 $12 $15 $15
The reality may be more complicated. operations data. and $60 and $105 lower for long-haul flights—a not insignificant
amount.
After accounting for the higher initial purchase costs of aircraft. reducing
roughly 800 million metric tons of CO2 emissions between 2025 and 2050.S. and about 30% life cycle CO2 emissions impact under aggressive
system improvement scenario in 2040. Although this analysis relies upon U. Action Plan document does not specify
any cost implication of the programs.ICCT REPORT
3. suggests
a diminished incentive for airlines to voluntarily pass on savings to passengers (Pinsker.
These results are consistent with plans aiming to reduce the impact of U. The breakdown of these airfare savings is presented in Table 10 by aircraft
type and scenario.3. action plan estimated about 20% life cycle CO2 reductions from airframe and engine improvements
under a moderate improvement scenario. The U. goals can be accomplished in a
cost-effective manner.
using 2005 emissions as a baseline. and still-elevated ticket prices in the United States. Aviation Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Reduction Plan (FAA 2015a). which combined low fuel
prices. 2016). TICKET PRICE IMPACTS
The cost estimation of this study concluded that the implementation of fuel-efficient
technologies in future aircraft can save airlines up to 33% in total operational (fuel and
maintenance) costs per aircraft every year assuming the aircraft is operated for 17 years.4.
32 The U. aviation industry would emit more
than twice its CO2 emissions in 2005.2.
31
.S. The plan found that this goal could be met with a
combination of aggressive operational and technology improvements32 plus optimistic
alternative fuel deployment pathways. This study suggests that the aircraft and engine
technology improvements needed to achieve the U. In 2015.S. respectively)
would reduce CO2 emissions by 6% in 2030 and by more than 30% in 2050.S. Van Cleave. U. The situation in 2015. this overall
conclusion—that adopting fuel-efficient technologies on new airplanes could provide net
savings to consumers—should hold globally as well. commercial aviation by 2020.
2016.S. record airline profits.S. in 2050 the U.S.

could be utilized when analyzing technology costs.5. According
to the same study.
A recent study suggested that current low fuel prices are unlikely to continue in the long
term. using a 3% discount rate instead of
9% would shift the fuel burn improvement break-even point over a seven-year period
from the base case of 25% in 2024 and 40% in 2034 to 41% and up to 47% in 2024 and
2034.
The results of this study are based on the assumption of $2.
32
.. the U. P.94/gallon jet fuel price
in 2013. which capture the cost of capital for investors and consumers. fuel prices.5.S. the longer it will take operators to recoup the upfront capital
costs of improved aircraft via fuel and maintenance savings. A lower discount rate to reflect the social cost of capital. The U. 2015). respectively. government recommends declining
discount rates over a long period. 2015 for a discussion of the sensitivity of technology cost effectiveness to
discount rates (i.33
3. However. instead of
airline cost of capital. Fuel prices
A previous study on historical aircraft fuel efficiency trends related spikes in oil prices
to subsequent improvements in average aircraft fuel efficiency after a period of delay
(Kharina & Rutherford. the
lower the fuel price. and that without a push to adopt fuel-savings technology in the transportation
sector. al.
government recommends an increasing long-term discount rate approach ranging
from 2% for three-year periods to 3. The sharp drop in oil prices starting in September 2014
has the potential to do the opposite by diminishing market incentives for fuel efficiency.50/gallon). H. different results are seen. leading to less natural
technology adoption. 2016). if the same analysis is run based on the 2015 average jet fuel price
(approximately $1. for the same reason of uncertainties in the future.1 Discount rates
Discount rates. 2015)—to
reflect the private cost of capital for large corporations expecting a high return on
investment. In contrast. Here we investigated the
effect of fuel prices on the payback period for aircraft fuel efficiency. with long-term price increases consistent with 2015 EIA projections (EIA.e.5% for 30-year period scenarios (OMB. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
3.5. and market risk.2. however. et.
2015). have a
strong effect on how costs are weighed against the benefits and risks of investment. SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
This section discusses three sensitivity analyses with potentially strong influences on the
results and policy implications: discount rates. social costs).5% for 0-30
years and 3% for up to 75 years (Treasury.5 of Tecolote. prices could rise to $130 a barrel by 2050 (Summerton.
The baseline cost results presented above were calculated using a 9% discount
rate—on the high end of the estimated cost of capital for airlines (Tecolote.
The discount rates recommended are similar.3.
Tecolote analysis shows that. Intuitively. implementation of policies to encourage fuel-efficient transportation
would stabilize the market price of oil at between $83 and $87 per barrel from 2030 and
33 See section 5. ranging from 3. 2015) for
cost-effectiveness analyses.
Despite several prominent new aircraft types entering the market in the next few years. as a rule of thumb.
the pressure to develop and implement fuel-efficiency technologies may diminish as fuel
efficiency loses its economic appeal for airlines. private cost of capital vs.
3.K. 2003).

eia. Under the equilibrium fuel prices outlined above.
12
Base Price Low Price
10
Payback Period (years)
8
6
4
2
0
25% in 2024 40% in 2034
Fuel burn reduction and EIS
Figure 11 Payback period by fuel burn reduction.
a relatively small change. affect cost
in at least two ways.htm (retrieved Jun 2. 2016)
33
.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_d. the effect of low fuel prices on the payback period of
advanced aircraft can be considered. before payback for the first
owner of an aircraft (see Figure 11). First. it can be concluded that the relative cost
of technologies to improve aircraft fuel efficiency is dependent upon fuel prices.
this corresponds to stabilized jet fuel prices between 2030 and 2050 of ~$2. EIS year and fuel price scenario
3.ICCT REPORT
2050. as estimated on a seven-year operational period (see Section
3. which itself depends on the
number of aircraft sold and whether the associated margins are sufficient to recuperate
development costs. with
greater elasticity in the mid-term as the range of available technologies expand. the success of an aircraft program is measured not by
its environmental performance but rather its profitability. Using EIA data to estimate the correlation between crude oil and jet fuel prices34. a 40% fuel burn reduction for 2034 EIS aircraft
would require 11 years.
With this fuel price assumption. selling more or fewer aircraft than anticipated changes the
price that an aircraft must be sold for to break even given that the nonrecurring costs of
34 https://www.3. Baseline results suggest that the fuel burn on new
aircraft designs can be reduced by up to 25% and 40% in 2024 and 2034. In contrast.
in a cost-effective manner. either positive or negative.5. or four years longer than baseline. the technologies enabling a 25%
fuel burn reduction in 2024 EIS aircraft would pay back in eight instead of seven years. Changes in market share. From this.40/gallon
(in 2013 dollars).3). Market risk
For an aircraft manufacturer. respectively.

more competition can also mean more development risk for
manufacturers. in this case. duopoly)
is generally undesirable.
The cost modeling summarized in Tecolote (2015) found that. Considering that aircraft are multimillion-dollar investments. this equates to
significant cost changes for airlines and manufacturers that can impact the commercial
viability of entire product lines. While monopoly (or. more efficient products. the TOC of new aircraft are most sensitive to assumptions about the
number of aircraft delivered. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
technology maturation and aircraft development are amortized across more (or fewer)
aircraft. Furthermore. more efficient aircraft amid substantial uncertainty in market demand
and fuel price risks being undercut by competitors selling existing models at lower
prices. in terms of market capture. vice versa. across all variables
investigated. the aviation industry has seen the competition for market share intensify. along with a potential disincentive for innovation.
34
. As a rule of thumb. a 20%
increase in the number of aircraft delivered reduces TOC by 5% and. A manufacturer
investing in new. excess or insufficient sales shift a given aircraft type along its learning
curve.
Most recently.
especially in the RJ and SA aircraft markets. Secondly. Transparent and meaningful fuel-efficiency performance standards for new
aircraft may help manufacturers manage this investment risk by guaranteeing market
demand for new. changing the marginal production cost of each subsequent aircraft. a 50% decrease in market capture would increase total costs by
about 13%. a 20%
reduction in market capture would increase those costs by 5% relative to the reference
aircraft.

Three are
considered here: performance standards for new aircraft. This study finds that the fuel consumption of new
aircraft can be reduced by approximately 25% in 2024 and 40% in 2034 compared
with today’s aircraft by deploying emerging cost-effective technologies. and
35
.
namely the value of public policies to promote aircraft fuel efficiency. Airlines could
reduce their fuel spending over the 2025 to 2050 time frame by 19% compared
with the baseline case.
3.
5. and research
support for technology development. these savings could
lower ticket prices by up to $20 for short-haul flights and $105 for long-haul
flights assuming EIA reference fuel price projections. which corresponds to about a 70% increase in fuel efficiency. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The results presented above suggest the following overall conclusions:
1. CO2 emissions could be
reduced by 6% in 2030 and 30% in 2050 compared with the base case. if passed along to the consumer. Additional efficiency gains beyond the baseline Evolutionary case (seven-year
time horizon.ICCT REPORT
4. Across all scenarios investigated.
This effect may be particularly pronounced in the mid-term as the universe of
potential technologies expands. Lower fuel prices associated with increased oil supply and/or lower demand have
the potential to slow the deployment of fuel-efficient technologies in new aircraft.
2. economic incentives to reduce
emissions from the in-service fleet. transparent. Accelerating the adoption of cost-effective technologies would provide
significant benefits to airlines. These improvements dwarf the fuel efficiency of new “project” aircraft designs
being brought to market by manufacturers today.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
As noted above. may
be conservative because of the modeling assumptions used and the exclusion of
non-conventional airframes like blended wing body or strut-based wings. carbon pricing. notably airframe
improvements that reduce aerodynamic drag and aircraft empty weight.
will provide only one-half of the near-term cost-effective fuel and emissions
reductions identified in this study. There is a significant potential to reduce the fuel burn of new commercial aircraft
in the near.
4. Those re-engined designs. performance standards for new vehicles can help promote technologies
to reduce vehicle fuel consumption and GHG emissions. 9% discount rate) are possible but will require government
support through policies like efficiency standards. and research support to defray the costs of maturing
new technologies.and mid-term.
which are estimated to burn between 9% and 13% less fuel on a technology basis. A robust. and the environment. The
latter value. with additional benefits to the purchasers
of used aircraft.
The substantial gap between the cost-effective fuel-efficiency improvements identified
in this study and the products being brought to market today holds policy implications. This finding suggests that industry’s preference
for re-engining rather than clean sheet designs results in the underdeployment
of key technologies to improve aircraft fuel efficiency. consumers. $1 in
upfront investment in fuel efficiency provides about $3 in fuel and maintenance
savings over the first-owner lifetime.

carbon based airport or en route
charges. ICAO recommended a CO2 (fuel efficiency) standard for new aircraft for adoption
by its member states. On the other hand.35
The results summarized above suggest that substantial benefits could be enjoyed by
airlines. which will impose minimum fuel-efficiency
targets for new aircraft designs with EIS dates of approximately 2024.
35 Overall. and ICAO may require that any
emissions growth from international flights after 2020 be mitigated (ICAO. will require
approximately 30% of the cost-effective near-term technology potential in this study. Example
policies include emissions trading. although further work is needed. See ICCT (2016) for details. and the environment if agencies such as the EPA strengthen ICAO’s
recommended standards prior to implementation under domestic legislation. economic incentives can likewise help provide demand side pull. As noted above. The standards will require on average a 4% reduction in the fuel burn of new in-production (InP)
aircraft between 2015 and 2028.
ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
While performance standards provide the most direct incentive to promote fuel
efficiency. government
research programs such as the NASA ERA program and the NASA AATT project are
developing and demonstrating crucial fuel-efficient technologies applicable to future
commercial aircraft. ICAO’s recommended CO2 standard is expected to serve predominately as an anti-backsliding
measure. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
properly enforced standard could help mitigate investment risks that manufacturers
assume when investing in new technologies. are featuring incremental
improvements. could
be collected either on a revenue neutral basis (indexed to CO2 intensity) or to recover
the “full cost” of environmental damages associated with aviation emissions (ICAO
2004). In February
2016. 2002) and could be indexed to aircraft fuel efficiency to reward
airlines operating the most efficient planes.
RESEARCH SUPPORT
For an aircraft manufacturer. could promote new fuel-efficiency improvements by increasing the
relative cost of fuel in a predictable manner over time. Airport charges such as landing fees and en route charges used to cover the
cost of air traffic control are typically responsible for 7% to 9% of an airline’s overall cost
structure (Doganis. and fuel taxation. emission charges. domestic and intra-European flights are
currently subject to carbon pricing under the EU ETS. while levied only sparingly
today on jet fuel. 2016). Those standards. a level of improvement smaller than that expected due to market forces
alone. Emission charges. Continued government support for similar projects could alleviate
some of the risk and cost burdens for manufacturers. Progress has been made recently to
develop aircraft performance standards. in new aircraft models entering into service
in the next five years. Finally. for example. in particular re-engines. consumers. albeit
through the use of offsets. fuel taxes. allowing them to pursue more
ambitious fuel-efficiency targets for their new products. instead of clean sheet designs. 2015). Boeing and Airbus.
36
. a new aircraft program is a high risk endeavor that
requires large upfront research and development expenses. or a flat fee per ton of CO2 emitted. The desire to avoid such
risks may have contributed to the shift in manufacturers’ approach to developing new
products (Ostrower.

while the improvements for structural technologies like lightweight
materials indicate percentile weight reductions. percent
technology improvements for aerodynamic technologies are presented in drag
improvement. See Appendix B for a list of engine technologies analyzed during the engine
performance modeling. which are not
listed here.
40
. For example. were treated as direct inputs into engine performance modeling using
GasTurb. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
APPENDIX A—TECHNOLOGY PACKAGES
Tables A1 to A3 present aerodynamic and structural technologies included in each
scenario package for three aircraft types and the estimated percent technology
improvement within the subsystem to which it is applied. Engine technologies.

subsonic aircraft certified to civil aviation standards. a
commercially available software tool developed by Lissys. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
APPENDIX B—TECHNOLOGY MODELING METHODS
In this study. a set of
Piano user factor multipliers indicating technology impact on the aircraft characteristics
and performance were developed. Ltd. along with three other aircraft design tools. and Aggressive) for each aircraft type.lissys. Piano 5 was thus deemed to be a suitable tool to
estimate the fuel-efficiency implications of advanced technologies in this study. and
Aggressive. 2034 Evolutionary. In this study. The chosen Piano
aircraft used as reference aircraft models are:
»» Airbus A320-200 (SA): Airbus A320-214 77t
»» Boeing 777-200ER (STA): B777-200 ER (656)g
»» Embraer E190AR (RJ): Embraer 190 AR
For each of the six technology deployment scenario (2024 Evolutionary.2.faa. resulting in a set of new user factors or performance
36 http://www.piano. Ascend fleet database40 was consulted to determine
the most prominent variant based on the global fleet as of April 2013.
AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE MODELING
This section presents the steps taken in a resizing exercise around technology
implementation onto a reference aircraft while maintaining payload and range
capabilities. Further details on Piano capabilities are provided in the Piano user and
help files (available at http://www.ascendworldwide. was used in the ICAO Long Term
Technology Goal study to provide modeling data to supplement the independent
experts’ analysis (ICAO. The resulting fuel burn values from Piano were found
to be closely comparable with the other tools used (PASS: the Program for Aircraft
Synthesis Studies37.
The first step in technology performance modeling is determining the appropriate
aircraft model within the Piano database for each reference aircraft defined in Section
2. 2010a).
commercial.pdf. aircraft and engine performance modeling was done separately using
specialized software. Expansive detail on the aircraft and engine performance modeling
methodology is provided in Tecolote (2015).html). allowing for
preliminary aircraft design or modification of an existing design. including airline-specific
configurations.uk/index2.html. This section summarizes the steps taken to estimate aircraft and
engine fuel burn performance with and without the implementation of fuel saving
technologies.
38 See http://www. Moderate.de/pers/Scholz/arbeiten/TextSalavin. When multiple Piano aircraft are available for the same aircraft type due to
different MTOW or engine variant. which
overlaps substantially with the LTTG review.36 Piano 5 is built around
a database of detailed technical and performance data for current conventional.fzt. PrADO: the Preliminary Design and Optimization Program38 and
EDS: Environmental Design Space39). aircraft performance was modeled using Piano 5. among others
39 https://www.
Piano 5.aero/
37 http://adg.demon. Moderate.com/what-we-do/ascend-data/aircraft-airline-data/
44
.1.co.edu/aa241/pass/pass1.stanford.haw-hamburg.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/models/eds/
40 http://www.

Based on these user factors. Out of 34 Piano user factors available. etc. moderate (yellow). and engine thrust. 2015). The optimization parameters used in this process are
MTOW.
45
. The result is an improved and resized
aircraft with fuel-saving technologies implemented. and nacelle sizes differ from one technology scenario to the other
while the fuselage size stays the same. empennage. a
subset of 14 user factor categories were used in this analysis:
»» Wing drag—factor applied to wing zero-lift drag
»» Fuse drag—factor applied to fuselage zero-lift drag
»» Nac drag—factor applied to nacelle zero-lift drag
»» Stab drag—factor applied to stabilizer zero-lift drag
»» Fin drag—factor applied to the fin zero-lift drag
»» Induced drag—factor applied to the wing induced drag
»» Box mass—factor applied to the wing structural mass
»» Flap mass—factor on estimated wing flap mass
»» Fuse mass—factor on estimated fuselage mass
»» Fin mass—factor on estimated vertical tail mass
»» U/c mass—factor on undercarriage mass
»» Takeoff clmax—factor applied to the total CLmax of the aircraft at takeoff
flap deflections
»» Landing clmax—factor applied to the total CLmax of the aircraft at landing
flap deflections
The technology-based user factors were developed by Tecolote and their SMEs. the
wings.
Figure B 1 shows a three-view of all 2024 cases for the single aisle aircraft: reference
(blue). the aircraft requires less fuel to operate and therefore gains more range
capability with the same design payload (shown as a dot along the colored lines of each
technology scenario). number of crew. these reference aircraft were modified (by changing the
appropriate Piano user factors) and resized using Piano’s “optimization” function. and operational parameters
such as passenger weight.
41 In this study the R1 point (maximum range at maximum structural payload) was used as the reference point
for aircraft resizing.ICCT REPORT
parameters unique to the improved aircraft. The resizing process was done with the
objective to minimize fuel burn. wing area. evolutionary (green). while
keeping payload and range capability41 constant. on the other hand. As shown. Parameters that are kept
constant are fuselage size and geometry. number of seats. shows the different
payload-range diagram of the different scenarios. and aggressive (red). sweep angle. and the
values of the user factors are presented in their report (Tecolote. Figure B 2. aspect ratio. While the R1 point (maximum range
at maximum payload) was kept constant. with a more aggressive level of technology
implementation.

000 65.7 312. the engine performance modeling software used in this study. and temperature values at all major
stations within the engine. GTF.e. the first step to engine performance modeling is to determine
the reference aircraft.2010).3
The assumptions and ground rules used in modeling improved engine performance for
each aircraft type are as follows:
»» The reference engines are to be similar to modern engines prior to significant
growth steps (EIS 2000 . Engine weight estimation methodology will be discussed
later in this section.
As with Piano modeling. GasTurb does not provide weight estimates but it does capture
changes in geometry based upon design choice (such as estimating fan diameter and
other significant dimensions). is a
commercially available program that uses pre-defined engine configurations while
permitting input of important parameters.4 4. including component geometry. Table B 2
presents the propulsion configurations for aircraft used in this study as reference aircraft
along with their basic parameters. Another output used in the latter phases of this study is engine thrust/
weight ratio that.
»» Growth engine derivative will be similar to modern engines following significant
growth (i. high-temperature alloys. The process was simple since reference engines were chosen
based on the most prominent engine installed on the reference aircraft.
»» New engines for 2024 Evolutionary scenarios will be similar to planned products
being introduced in this time frame:
»» Second-generation E-Jet engines for RJ
»» A320neo/737 MAX engines for single aisle
»» 787 and A380 engines for small twin aisle
»» Technology considered to include:
»» Architecture (advanced direct drive.
Table B 2 Engine Reference Configurations
Single Aisle Small Twin Aisle
(A320-200) (B777-200ER) Regional Jet (E190)
Engine: CFM56-5A3 Engine: GE90-85B Engine: 1-10-2-4
SLS Thrust—N 118. EIS 2010-2024).4 117.3
Bypass Ratio 6.8
Overall PR 28 39 28.000
Fan Diameter—cm 172.
Outputs from this tool include flow. GasTurb
was chosen due to its better ability of modeling detailed performance of aircraft engine
compared with Piano. etc.)
48
.0 8. resulted in engine weight
used in cost estimation. alternative engine
mounting for Open Rotor configurations)
»» Materials (Composites. advanced aluminum. 2015)
GasTurb. using nomenclature consistent with current industry
standards. pressure.. multiple fans. combined with thrust values from Piano.000 378. COST ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE NEW AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY
ENGINE PERFORMANCE MODELING (TECOLOTE.